Ranjit Singh vs The State of Haryana, etc.

Gurdev Singh, J.—u/s 5 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads Act, 1&61 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) one of the members of the Panchayat Samati for a Block has to be "a Member representing the Market Committees in the Block elected by the members of such Committees from amongst the producer members residing within the jurisdiction of the Panchayat Samiti." In 1964 Amrik Singh (Respondent No. 4) was so elected to the Panchayat Samiti, Nilokheri. Before the expiry of his term of membership of the Samiti, fresh elections to the Market. Committees in the Block took place, but he was not returned. He, however, continued to function as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti at Nilokheri when the Commissioner, Agricultural Production and Rural Development and Secretary to Government, Haryana, Development and Panchayat Department, wrote to all the Deputy Commissioners in the State of Haryana that if a member representing Market Committees had ceased to be a member of any Market Committee, he had become disqualified for being elected as Member to the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishad. Accordingly, the Deputy Commissioner, Karnal, considered that Amrik Singh Respondent could not remain a member of the Panchayat Samiti, Nilokheri, and fresh election had to take place in the seat thus vacated by him. Thereupon the Market Committees concerned elected the Petitioner Ranjit Singly to represent it in the Panchayat Samiti, Nilokheri u/s 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.

Before this election of Ranjit Singh could be notified by the Deputy Commissioner u/s 10 of the Act, the Government withdrew instructions contained in its memorandum No. OREO-PE-2-67/4690-96, dated 18th August, 1967, being contrary to the legal advice received. Thereupon the Deputy Commissioner not only re~ fused to gazette the election of Ranjit Singh as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti, Nilokheri, but also cancelled his earlier notification, dated 12th December, 1967, declaring that Amrik Singh Respondent had ceased to be a member of the Market Committee. Being thus aggrieved, Ranjit Singh came to this Court under Article 226 read with Articles 227 of the Constitution praying for a writ directing the Respondent-authorities to notify his name as a duly elected member of the Panchayat Samiti, Nilokheri. His petition having been rejected by a learned Single Judge of this Court, he has appealed under Clause (x) of the Letters Patent.

The short question for our consideration is: "Does a member elected to a Panchayat Samiti in Haryana u/s 5(2)(a)(iii) of the Act as representing the Market Committees in the Block cease to be a member of the Panchayat Samiti or become disqualified from continuing as such if before the expiry of his term as a Member of the Panchayat Samiti he ceases to be a member of a Market Committee in the Block?"

Before proceeding further it may here be stated at once that so far as Punjab is concerned, the matter has been set at rest by Section 2 of the Punjab Samitis and Zila Parishads (Amendment) Act 15 1968 which has added Clause (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 15 of the principal Act, reading thus:

He ceases to have the qualification on the basis of which he was elected as Member of the Panchayat Samiti.

Section 5 of the Act, which lays down the constitution of the Panchayat Samiti, leaves no doubt that one of its members must be elected by the Market Committees within the Block and must be a producer-member of one of such Committees. Section 8 of the Act, as amended by Act III of 1961, fixes the term of the office of such members as five years. Section 15 of the Act, however, provides that a member shall forth-with cease to be a member and his office shall. become vacant if "he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Section 6". On reference to Section 6, we find that it is nowhere stated that a member shall cease to be a member of the Samiti if he has ceased to be a member of the Market Committee. Clause (k) of this section, on which reliance is placed on behalf of the Appellant, reads thus:

No person shall be eligible for election as a Primary Member if such person--

(k) is disqualified for being elected or co-opted as a member.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant argues that since u/s 5(2)(a)(iii) no person who is not a member of a Market Committee can become a Member of the Panchayat Samiti, it follows that if a person ceases to be a member of a Market Committee within the Block, he becomes disqualified from retaining his seat as a Member of the Samiti. In view of the clear provision contained in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (2)(a) of Section 5 of the Act, there cannot be any dispute that for election as member of the Panchayat Samiti a person returned to the Samiti by the Market Committees must be one of their producer-members, but that is a qualification which he must fulfill at the time of the election to the Panchayat Samiti. There is nothing in the Act, or even in Sections 6 and 15 of the Act, which lays down that as soon as producer-member of the Panchayat Samiti ceases to be a member of any Market Committee in the Block on expiry of his term in such Committee, he must vacate his office or he becomes disqualified to hold his seat. The disqualification mentioned in Clause (k) of Section 6, in our opinion, is similar to that referred to in the preceding Clause (j) of that section, which provides that no person shall be eligible for election as a Primary Member if such person "is disqualified from membership of a Municipal Committee, Gram Panchayat, Panchayat Samiti, Zila Parishad or any other local authorities as a result of his election having been set aside under rules made under this Act or any other enactment for the time being in force relating to Municipalities, Panchayats or other local authorities.

This becomes abundantly clear, on reference to Rule 10 of the Punjab Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads (Election Petition) Rules, 1961, which admittedly apply to the State of Haryana as well. Under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 10, the prescribed authority while disposing of an election petition is required to record a finding whether any corrupt practice has or has not been proved to have been committed and further to specify the names of the persons who had been proved at the trial to have been guilty of any corrupt practice or of conniving at or abetting the same and to fix the period for which such persons shall be incapable of becoming members of Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads. In setting aside the election on proof of any corrupt practice, the prescribed authority may come to the conclusion that not only the member concerned has been guilty of corrupt practices but also others as well. Thereupon, he proceeds to disqualify all of them from becoming members of Panchayat Samiti or Zila Parishad for a specific period. The disqualification mentioned in Clause (j) of Section 6 of the Act covers only the case of a member whose election has been set aside and not of the others who may also be guilty of such practices or conniving at or abetting the same. It is to cover the case of such disqualified persons (other than the member whose election is set aside) that Clause (k) is intended.

Section 15 of the Act, which bears the heading "Vacation of Seats", specifies the circumstances in which the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or a Member of a Panchayat Samiti after entering upon his office shall forthwith cease to be the Chairman, Vice-Chairman or member, as the case may be. According to it, a member vacates his seat the moment he becomes subject to any of the disqualifications specified in Section 6, or absents himself without the permission of the Panchyat Samiti from more than three consecutive ordinary meetings. Had the legislature intended that a member returned to the Samiti from among the producer-members of Market Committees should vacate his seat on his ceasing to be a member of such Committee, the legislature could not have failed to say so while enacting Section 15.

We thus find that the Appellant was not entitled to any relief. The appeal is dismissed with costs.